Would more realistic musket training have a significant effect on the battle field?

[Orry]

I have read and heard a number of comments over the years that set me to thinking.

The first was that until recently most infantry have not shot to hit their opponent - indeed for most people its a hard 'skill' to gain.

More recently infantry have been being conditioned to shoot at people by the use of man shaped targets, pop ups etc.

The second was that the number of hits per thousand balls fired on the battle field was far lower than the number of hits on cloth targets the size of a Btn frontage in practice

The third that the noise and smoke of a battle was absent from the training.

So could a nation have improved the efficiency of its musket armed infantry by different training methods that do not require equipment not available at the time.

Things like

Realistic targets - possibly painted wood or straw in uniforms

Braziers etc to produce smoke to make the targets harder to see to more accuretly reflect battle field conditions

Units maneuvering against each other and firing blanks

Any other ideas? Thoughts about these?

 

[Cheer]

I have read and heard a number of comments over the years that set me to thinking.

The first was that until recently most infantry have not shot to hit their opponent - indeed for most people its a hard 'skill' to gain.

More recently infantry have been being conditioned to shoot at people by the use of man shaped targets, pop ups etc.

The second was that the number of hits per thousand balls fired on the battle field was far lower than the number of hits on cloth targets the size of a Btn frontage in practice

The third that the noise and smoke of a battle was absent from the training.

So could a nation have improved the efficiency of its musket armed infantry by different training methods that do not require equipment not available at the time.

Things like

Realistic targets - possibly painted wood or straw in uniforms

Braziers etc to produce smoke to make the targets harder to see to more accuretly reflect battle field conditions

Units maneuvering against each other and firing blanks

Any other ideas? Thoughts about these?

Perhaps.

However, with early muskets, it is important to note that large mass volleys were more accurate than hit-a-certain-target shots as a whole. So, when large armies fought, the idea was to just level a giant wall of bullets at the unfortunate sods' faces and hope the majority of them hit. If the troops all aimed for their own "target" you run the risk of multiple soldiers firing on one soldier and losing efficiency that way, as well as almost none of those shots actually hitting, regardless of your infantry's training.

There are very real reasons the "stand in a block and shoot all at once" strategy was widespread in Europe– it was the overall best strategy. And while the training you propose would definitely help troops' one-on-one shooting skills, those were irrelevant in actual battles, so the extra resources and time to have this better training would have little to no benefit.

What you do mention that is very interesting is practicing maneuvering in the battlefield. This might actually help, and I'm sure a few elite units did something like this, but I doubt there would be enough time to do this with a whole army.

 

[Diego]

Interesting topic. I wish I could make a contribution, but just to illustrate what I think that the OP is talking about, jump to 2 minutes in the video if you don't want to wait, but I recommend watching from the start:

 

[Greg Grant]

Perhaps.

However, with early muskets, it is important to note that large mass volleys were more accurate than hit-a-certain-target shots as a whole. So, when large armies fought, the idea was to just level a giant wall of bullets at the unfortunate sods' faces and hope the majority of them hit. If the troops all aimed for their own "target" you run the risk of multiple soldiers firing on one soldier and losing efficiency that way, as well as almost none of those shots actually hitting, regardless of your infantry's training.

There are very real reasons the "stand in a block and shoot all at once" strategy was widespread in Europe– it was the overall best strategy. And while the training you propose would definitely help troops' one-on-one shooting skills, those were irrelevant in actual battles, so the extra resources and time to have this better training would have little to no benefit.

What you do mention that is very interesting is practicing maneuvering in the battlefield. This might actually help, and I'm sure a few elite units did something like this, but I doubt there would be enough time to do this with a whole army.

Good post.

The whole maneuvering thing was actually a problem for a lot of nations, IIRC, as finding suitable ground and having enough people in uniform to perform it was seen as a logistical nightmare. I cannot recall the book, but it argued that the mostly dreadful performance of most of the British cavalry during Napoleonic Wars was blamed on lack of comprehensive formation training.

 

[Orry]

Thank you for your responce but I think there is a little confusion as to what I am asking.

This is not about training and individual infantryman to fire at a particular enemey but to actually fire at the general target rather than aim high.

My thought is that if you have not been taught to fire at what looks like a mass of men then your natural thought is to try and scare them away (and hope they are going to be doing the same). Hence you have accounts of units blazing away at each other but causing very few casualties.

The accuracy of the musket means that a single soildier can not shoot at an indervidual enemy but by using a realistic looking battalion target you can get them conditioned to actually fire at a bunch of enemy soildiers rather than over their heads.

I am trying to find the piece but I remember reading that against a target in practice that was just a white sheet you could get upto 10% hits with a close range volley but that that dropped to less than 1% when faced with real people.

If your troops are used to firing at what looks like real people, used to the noise and smoke maybe you can move that figure from less than 1% up a little closer to the practice figure. You are never going to get it to 10% but even 2-3% makes a huge difference.

 

[Orry]

Interesting topic. I wish I could make a contribution, but just to illustrate what I think that the OP is talking about, jump to 2 minutes in the video if you don't want to wait, but I recommend watching from the start:

Not quite the same figures as I can remember but a very similar idea.

In that video its 500 hits in practice and 3 hits in battle - can you train your troops to move the 3 hits closer to the 500??

 

[Practical Lobster]

It seems to me like standing in formation and taking fire while still performing combat tasks like reloading "aiming" and firing is a pretty impressive thing to be able to train people to do. It goes against pretty much all of someone's natural inclinations as far as I can tell to a somewhat greater degree than modern or ancient combat. Surely it's incredibly difficult to get troops drilled to the point where they can remain calm (and standing) under fire, execute a repetitive and somewhat complicated mechanical task, and then shoot back. I don't know what was done to condition soldiers in say, the eighteenth century against breaking after just taking a couple volleys, but surely that would be the most effective way to improve combat performance for a given unit of soldiers?

Also I wonder if there's a degree of reciprocity at play - if I don't really level my gun and shoot up high maybe the other guy won't shoot at me and we all have a better chance of living.

 

[Cheer]

Thank you for your responce but I think there is a little confusion as to what I am asking.

This is not about training and individual infantryman to fire at a particular enemey but to actually fire at the general target rather than aim high.

My thought is that if you have not been taught to fire at what looks like a mass of men then your natural thought is to try and scare them away (and hope they are going to be doing the same). Hence you have accounts of units blazing away at each other but causing very few casualties.

The accuracy of the musket means that a single soildier can not shoot at an indervidual enemy but by using a realistic looking battalion target you can get them conditioned to actually fire at a bunch of enemy soildiers rather than over their heads.

I am trying to find the piece but I remember reading that against a target in practice that was just a white sheet you could get upto 10% hits with a close range volley but that that dropped to less than 1% when faced with real people.

If your troops are used to firing at what looks like real people, used to the noise and smoke maybe you can move that figure from less than 1% up a little closer to the practice figure. You are never going to get it to 10% but even 2-3% makes a huge difference.

I think that's less training and more just basic human empathy. I would be fine shooting at a white sheet or even a straw person. It would actually be fun. But I would never fire a gun at a real person, and a lot of that era's (largely conscripted) soldiers had that same issue. No amount of training with a gun will make that number significantly higher, I don't think. Nationalism/racism on the other hand....

 

[Cheer]

Surely it's incredibly difficult to get troops drilled to the point where they can remain calm (and standing) under fire, execute a repetitive and somewhat complicated mechanical task, and then shoot back. I don't know what was done to condition soldiers in say, the eighteenth century against breaking after just taking a couple volleys, but surely that would be the most effective way to improve combat performance for a given unit of soldiers?

If you ran from combat, you were executed. Harsh punishment for otherwise balking. It was brutal trying to get those poor boys to stand still and shoot. At least, that's what I've read on the matter.

 

[Raferty]

The way that combat worked, with mass sheets of lead flying at places that roughly corresponded with targets, was done for a reason, and that was that it killed the most people possible with the weapons used. Muskets were horribly inaccurate, and the people firing them, unless they had a background with the weapon from hunting or whatever, were largely trained to shoot where told and not to use initiative.

The reasons muskets were even adapted was because archery practice and training was simply too damn hard for the numbers of men that were being pushed into combat in early modern warfare. Crossbows and longbows could largely, if not pierce, than at least eliminate the combat ability, of a armour bearing knight.

What would have made a difference would have been earlier rifling. If rifling was adopted earlier, the lethality of infantry would have drastically increased. Extending the range and accuracy of muskets would make battles look much different, with formations being stretched and thinned for more frontage and less importance for column depth or close combat power stressed, and a more prodigious use of skirmishers, who in OTL, were largely not effective in open battle in Europe until the Napoelonic Wars.

The idea that troops were not aiming to kill for humane reasons seems quite unlikely based off of the actions of armies on the march, against civilians with more personalized bladed weapons, during the Thirty Years War and most of the Absolute Monarchial Wars of the 17th-18th centuries. Early modern armies could be quite barbaric and had no qualms killing. There were areas of Germany that saw depopulation from the predations of armies in the Wars of Religion, and the type of soldier recruited in the post-Westphalian era in most of Europe were either conscript-slaves with their humanity stripped from them at an early age (most of the small HRE states) or feudal levies subject to savage brutality in discipline (France, Austria, Russia) or those at the utter bottom of the socioeconomic scale and often recruited from prisons (Britain, Spain). To the extent that pacifism existed, it didn't seem to manifest itself in the conduct of armies of the time.

The atrocious aim of soldiers of the era came from a combination of inaccurate muskets, and the utter terror of being on the battlefield and having to go through the manual of arms in loading a musket during combat and firing it with all of the smoke and noise in the direction of the enemy without aiming too high, as well as the generally low familiarity with musketry most soldiers were before entering training at the time in Europe.

 

[longsword14]

The reasons muskets were even adapted was because archery practice and training was simply too damn hard for the numbers of men that were being pushed into combat in early modern warfare.

Got s primary source that states this. Bows were not more accurate than a decently made musket.

. Crossbows and longbows could largely, if not pierce, than at least eliminate the combat ability, of a armour bearing knight.

What if the horse is also armoured ? Arrows cannot do anything to a man wearing good armour.

 

[Raferty]

Got s primary source that states this. Bows were not more accurate than a decently made musket.

What if the horse is also armoured ? Arrows cannot do anything to a man wearing good armour.

No, they were not, but skilled practitioners of the bow were harder and harder to find as time went on, and England's archery laws were really what allowed them to keep a steady supply of archers that other states did not possess. The musket was a lot easier to train soldiers in its use. I wasn't claiming that the bow was better (it obviously was not), but rather that a big reason why the musket was adapted in the first place even before the invention of the wheellock (this invention made it clearly superior in terms of killing power) was how adaptable it was for untrained soldiers.

As for armor, the horses generally weren't all that armored due to the expense, but as seen in the Hundred Years War, it wasn't always the arrows themselves that killed the knight, but rather the psychological effect of being struck with arrows repeatedly and what it did to armored troops before melee combat was reached even if they were not killed. I suppose in the case of an armored horse, yes, the bow and crossbow does not win out.

 

[longsword14]

but skilled practitioners of the bow were harder and harder to find as time went on, and England's archery laws were really what allowed them to keep a steady supply of archers that other states did not possess.

My question was if there are any primary sources, i.e. by soldiers in the transition age, that actually say so. Guns were used by trained men too.

As for armor, the horses generally weren't all that armored due to the expense, but as seen in the Hundred Years War,

By the time guns became infantry weapons, horses also wore armour.

it wasn't always the arrows themselves that killed the knight, but rather the psychological effect of being struck with arrows repeatedly and what it did to armored troops before melee combat was reached even if they were not killed.

Armoured troops would find these strikes to be less than pinpricks. Arrows could have only been used against third line troops .

 

[Tjyorksgeezer]

IIRC part of the reason for such poor results by several armies with their muskets was lack of practice, their governments simply did not want to pay for the amount of powder it would take to drill correctly, a soldier could be trained to go through the motions of reloading and firing but without the bang, recoil and the smoke it doesn't recreate the shock of battle. Some of the tactics such as the column used by the Napoleonic army were to make up for this deficiency by shock of men rather than firepower. I believe the British did train with powder more than the other armies of the time, thus their use of the line rather than the column.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The reasons muskets were even adapted was because archery practice and training was simply too damn hard for the numbers of men that were being pushed into combat in early modern warfare.

Actually, that's a myth: 16th-century commentators thought that musketeers needed more training than other types of soldiers, not less.

Crossbows and longbows could largely, if not pierce, than at least eliminate the combat ability, of a armour bearing knight.

If that was ever true, had ceased to be so by the late 15th century, when handguns started being used in a big way in European armies.

What would have made a difference would have been earlier rifling. If rifling was adopted earlier, the lethality of infantry would have drastically increased.

Rifling was known since at least the 16th century; the problem was that it took much longer to reload a rifle until the invention of the Minie ball. A unit of riflemen might be able to get one or two extra volleys off before their enemies did, but once those enemies got within musket range they could blast away with their 3-4 times quicker reloading rate and win the battle.

 

[Aphrodite]

To expect men under fire to hit targets as well as they did during practice is rather silly. Under fire, there is a lot of pressure, smoke and things flying at you. You'll never have the calm mechanical situation of practice. There are like 30 steps t firing a musket. Get one wrong and rhe shot is useless That anything could get done is really amazing

The men fired high because the balls would fall below what you shot at. If you shot at the line directly, the balls would hit the ground in front of the men. The troops had plenty of experience

 

[173rd LRRP]

Never heard of

Interesting topic. I wish I could make a contribution, but just to illustrate what I think that the OP is talking about, jump to 2 minutes in the video if you don't want to wait, but I recommend watching from the start:

Never heard of Lindy Beige before - I am now a fan

 

[Orry]

To expect men under fire to hit targets as well as they did during practice is rather silly. Under fire, there is a lot of pressure, smoke and things flying at you. You'll never have the calm mechanical situation of practice. There are like 30 steps t firing a musket. Get one wrong and rhe shot is useless That anything could get done is really amazing

The men fired high because the balls would fall below what you shot at. If you shot at the line directly, the balls would hit the ground in front of the men. The troops had plenty of experience

Nobody is expecting them to do as well as in practice but can you get them to better than they seem to have done in reality?

If that video clip that was posted is correct 500 hits in practice becomes 3 hits in actual battle. We are not trying to get them to 500 - not even 100 but in at least to double figures.....

 

[BBadolato]

Which battlefield? The Pequots and other Native American tribes adopted tactics with firearms that seem more similar to modern ones such as using cover and taking out distinctive looking commanders, so shooting at individual targets with muskets did exist. The colonists even had to adapt as well and get Native guides in order to fight because their tactics did not work. However, the fighting there was much closer in terms of range than the standard fare.

However, with the defeat and decimation of the Native Americans, conventional European military tactics started to become the norm in the Americans instead of being outmatched or having to adapt to how the native used European firearms. I don't know if you can get a point where more "effective" training to really work out Europe's battlefields